Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong.
Scores from center bounces/clearances I believe immediately went up when the rule was introduced.
A quarter of football does not validate anything.
Average scores have trended down the entire time we've had 6-6-6. Its failed to achieve its stated purpose.
Obviously you could adjust 2020 for length of game time but even ignoring that season 2019 and 2021 are the lowest scoring seasons in the last decade (and i believe I read since about the 1960s).
Note: Stats based on Home and Away results because that's what i had available.
6-6-6 was inadequately tested and trialled before its implementation and they didn't properly factor in how much scoring was generated as a result of the +1 in defense leading to successful scoring chains. Yeah sure you might get some extra scores from centre clearances but its outweighed by the negative side effects.
So yeah this is why its complete rubbish to take one game, even a Grand Final and say how brilliant 6-6-6 is.
View attachment 1246445
What does the data say about scores in 2019-2021 without 6-6-6?
We don't know. It could have been a lot, lot, lower.
So we can't conclude that 6-6-6 has had no effect on scoring.
and was, beautifully.If teams are quick and confident the 6-6-6 can definitely be exploited.
OP has form with such fickle ways.Ridiculous thread. One game in three years is evidence a new rule was effective?
Gold post.6-6-6 and the Devil’s favourite Demons.
They've done it the last few weeks mate...
6-6-6 should be judged based on scores from center bounces. When the rule was introduced, it had an immediate impact.So basically your counter argument is that 6-6-6 may have partially countered the continued decline of scoring (a decline which is not based on any rule changes but has been a long term trend). The thing is the scoring is still significantly lower so at best its the wet lettuce leaf of fixes and at worst its part of the problem.
I can get people saying 6-6-6 leads to a more attractivve gamestyle if they feel that way but an argument to say its been successful increasing scoring (the AFL's stated aim) is not supported by any evidence that i've seen.
YEAR | TEAM SCORE PER GAME |
2019 | 12.9 points |
2018 | 9.4 |
2017 | 10.2 |
2016 | 11.1 |
2015 | 10.3 |
2014 | 10.2 |
2013 | 11.3 |
2012 | 11.7 |
2011 | 11.6 |
2010 | 9.4 |
2009 | 10.4 |
2008 | 12.2 |
2007 | 12 |
2006 | 11.5 |
"Last year, on average, both teams can expect to score roughly nine points from centre bounces," Scott said.
"We lost the centre bounces horribly, and that's bad enough. But then they scored 43 points from those centre bounces and we scored only 14 points.
"There are a lot of things that go into a game of footy, but that matters more than it's ever mattered in football history, I suspect. It's a huge component of the game."
North's 14 points on Sunday from centre bounces were actually above the season average of 12.9, but it was a problem because of what was happening the other way.
The scoring out of the middle is akin to what was occurring in the 2008 and 2007 seasons.
Ramming the change home further is that 16.1 per cent of overall points are coming from centre bounces.
This is up from 11.4 per cent last year, with the 2016 season's 12.6 per cent again the closest in recent times to what's happening in 2019, but still well behind.
So basically your counter argument is that 6-6-6 may have partially countered the continued decline of scoring (a decline which is not based on any rule changes but has been a long term trend). The thing is the scoring is still significantly lower so at best its the wet lettuce leaf of fixes and at worst its part of the problem.
I can get people saying 6-6-6 leads to a more attractivve gamestyle if they feel that way but an argument to say its been successful increasing scoring (the AFL's stated aim) is not supported by any evidence that i've seen.
AFL announces new rule changes and interpretations
League writes to clubs about nine changes for season 2019www.afl.com.au
The rule changes and interpretations protect and respect the traditions of Australian Football while progressing our game,” Mr. Hocking said.
“We all want more of what makes our game great – free flowing passages of play, one-on-one contests, and players having space to play on instinct.
“These changes are about giving players the best chance to play the best game, and giving the fans more of what they love,” Mr. Hocking said.
Hate it, what next - off side?
This is Australian Rules Football, a 360 degree game with very few restrictions on player movement. 6-6-6 is an abomination and should go along with the statue on the mark and the absurd way players stand 15 metres away on the mark when a kick out is taken after a behind.
In any case, as someone above mentioned - the AFL wanted this rule so they could have increased scores. Scores have decreased, so it failed on their own criteria.
If I wanted to watch basketball . . . I'd watch basketball.
DS
Great post. It's nice to see someone on this forum who uses critical thinking when it comes to analysis. Far too many reductive arguments in this thread.This is wrong on multiple fronts
Here is the actual official announcement of the end of 2018 rule changes
How on earth can you claim it was the "stated aim" to increase scoring when that aim wasn't state at all?
Increased scoring would be expected as a marginal benefit of opening the game up at the centre-bounce. There is no possible way that they would have conceived it having a massive impact on scoring.
The 6-6-6 was logically not going to massively increase scoring. All it can do is increase the chance of a score at the declining instances when centre bounces occur. A 10% increase chance of a goal due to 6-6-6 would ie expected to add just 1 goal to teams' average scores. And 10% would be a massive number - Always Ballin 's table suggests for 2019 it was half of that
So the increase chance of scoring and for that matter the increased probability of overcoming a deficit late in a game (as players can't be put behind the ball at the restart) are the stakeknifes of this rule change.
The whole point was to inject space into the game at the restart which it has clearly done.
Great post. It's nice to see someone on this forum who uses critical thinking when it comes to analysis. Far too many reductive arguments in this thread.
This is wrong on multiple fronts
Here is the actual official announcement of the end of 2018 rule changes
How on earth can you claim it was the "stated aim" to increase scoring when that aim wasn't stated at all?
Increased scoring would be expected as a marginal benefit of opening the game up at the centre-bounce. There is no possible way that they would have conceived it having a massive impact on scoring.
The 6-6-6 was logically not going to massively increase scoring. All it can do is increase the chance of a score at the declining instances when centre bounces occur. A 10% increase chance of a goal due to 6-6-6 would be expected to add just 1 goal to teams' average scores. And 10% would be a massive number - Always Ballin 's table suggests for 2019 it was half of that
So the increase chance of scoring and for that matter the increased probability of overcoming a deficit late in a game (as players can't be put behind the ball at the restart) are the steakknifes of this rule change.
The whole point was to inject space into the game at the restart which it has clearly done.
You must have been beside yourself with anger back in 1973 when the centre square was introduced
Hate it, what next - off side?
This is Australian Rules Football, a 360 degree game with very few restrictions on player movement. 6-6-6 is an abomination and should go along with the statue on the mark and the absurd way players stand 15 metres away on the mark when a kick out is taken after a behind.
In any case, as someone above mentioned - the AFL wanted this rule so they could have increased scores. Scores have decreased, so it failed on their own criteria.
If I wanted to watch basketball . . . I'd watch basketball.
DS
Know the new rules? 6-6-6, 50m penalties, kick-in rule explained
The new rules you'll notice in 2019, and how they will affect playwww.afl.com.au
Article from afl.com.au explaining the new rules and the expected impacts - i'll quote the most relevant part. Seems to me the AFL thought that higher scoring might be on the cards afterall.
Why all these changes in the first place?
Congestion has become a dirty word in football. It has been used to describe the steady increase in player numbers around contests in recent years, something that's been most noticeable around stoppages and when one team repeatedly locks the ball inside its forward half.
Scoring has also steadily dried up. In 2000, the average score of a team was 103 points per game, but that figure fell to a 50-year low of 83.5 points last year.
Team defensive structures and some teams' preparedness to station extra players inside their defensive 50m arcs has meant forwards are enjoying fewer and fewer opportunities to win the ball in one-on-one contests.
The League hopes its package of changes will address these issues.
Quite happy actually, we won the flag after letting your lot go in the Preliminary Final for a while and then putting the foot down.
Oh, and it would have been a centre diamond back then.
I don't oppose all rule changes. I recently watched the 1967 Grand Final (great game, do yourself a favour, close all day) and I think I counted around 18 players at one centre bounce. Don't mind the centre square (the diamond was logical but didn't work as players could run in too fast from mid way along each line). Also, they changed rules far less back then and this rule was at least tried in a Carlton game a couple of years earlier (both sides agreed to abide by it, against Fitzroy I think).
I still don't want to watch basketball and what we see now is teams folding right back to defend closer to the opposition goal because of various rule changes. 6-6-6 may cut congestion for about 10 seconds but it also stops teams attacking from the back of the square.
As for the AFL not saying they want higher scores, well, they wouldn't would they? You have to read between the lines a bit. We all know that the TV stations want more goals (more ads) and that is clearly what the AFL want. That AFL is about as transparent as a brick wall painted black, citing their excuses for fiddling with the game and changing the rules every 5 seconds means nothing.
Scores are down. Not sure why scores from centre clearances is relevant to the state of the game, why are scores from centre clearances somehow better than points scored any other way?
DS
Offside was an unwritten rule too, until one day a bright spark realised they could put ‘goalsneaks’ out the back and kick it to them. Should we implement that too?You do realise the 6 6 6 rule was an unwritten rule for 130 years of the game ?
Players playing out of position is a very recent thing brought in by coaches to flood defence and kill off scoring ?
Would scores have fallen further without the 6 6 6 rule ? They have bern slowly falling for years and years.
Offside was an unwritten rule too, until one day a bright spark realised they could put ‘goalsneaks’ out the back and kick it to them. Should we implement that too?
Channel 7 executives were doing cartwheels: Lots of goals... Lots of ad breaks.... Lots of money...Would have been much better if it was a closer game.. the 6-6-6 actually killed the game and it was 45 mins of junk time. Nice for Dees of course but pretty boring for everyone else.